704 W Park Ave Suite C
 Edgewater FL 32132-1409
 Ph 800-832-2823
 Fx 208-631-6381
 Outside the US:
 01-386-426-5393

IP Data Corporation

Patent SEARCH SYSTEMS & DATA SERVICES


User ID:  
PIN: Pop-Up a help window with Login information


The Automated Patent Library System is a form-based ordering and delivery system for publications and services for the IP professional that includes:

  • Patents  - US, EP and WO (PCT) are available immediately. 
     JP, GB, DE, and many other countries available are delivered with a few minutes..
  • Patent Applications (same countries)
  • Daily, weekly or monthly access for Full Text Patent Searching on our P9V7 System 

If you already have an active 5 digit Customer Number, you are already Registered to use APLS - just call us for your User ID and 5 digit PIN to Log On.     

If you don't have an account with us, click the link below for the Account Registration Page which includes APLS access: 

        Account/APLS Registration 

ITEMS OF INTEREST


USPTO MCF  vs.  EPO DOCDB
Same US Patents, Different CPC Classifications.   WHY? 

The USPTO MCF data began in late 2015, and almost immediately we noticed differences between the MCF and DOCDB for the same US patents. The differences were not trivial. 30 days later we started our project to track and analyze these differences. 


We mistakenly assumed that the USPTO sent DOCDB updates to the EPO with CPC classes in them, and the EPO used them.  But as it turns out, US patents are classified by both authorities, and not always in the same Groups and Sub-Groups. A small number were even found to be in totally different sub-classes and a few were not even in the same class  (all of these appeared to be mistakes and were fixed fairly quickly). 


Early results indicated it was a learning curve. The EPO had a decent headstart with the new CPC since it has its roots in ECLA, the EPO's previous system, with both based on the ST.8 standard (with minor differences). For the USPTO, it was a brand new ball game with a different set of rules. Frankly, the thought of training 9000 or so examiners on a new Class system in 12 to 18 months conjureed up images of hearding cats...  while wearing a blindfold. To the USPTO's credit, we began to see far fewer differences in less than 8 or 9 month (summer of 2016).  We are now headed into the winter of 2017, and thankfully, they are growing even closer.  


If you build your own search system, this could be a problem for your searchers. If not, does your current search provider index both sets?


Searching by classification is the most popular method for professional searchers, and depending on the type of search, a good searcher will often "eyeball" EVERY document in the Sub-Groups of interest. This can be hundreds of documents, or even a thousand or two depending on the technology.


The following questions remain:

1)  Whose CPC data is more accurate?

2) They will ever match exactly- No-  so how close will they get?

3) How will this affect your class searches?

4) Is it wise to index both sets of CPC data into one system?  (we think so - just ignore the duplicates!)

5)  CPC data for Reissue patents is still not included in the U.S. MCF. Will it ever be?


We will continue to acquire Reissue CPC data from DOCDB for our subscribers in our standard CSV file format until the USPTO supplies it.